24-105 to 24-70 switchers, feedback please!

Whether I sell my 24-105 and pay the difference or trade it and pay the difference (though I doubt many people do that), I'm planning to switch over to the 24-70 2.8. It's served me well and I have no problem with it, only problem is I'd rather take the faster lens which will help me in low light situations and achieving a decent shutter speed without relying on a flash.

I'd like to here from any other people who have done the switch and why and would you say its worth the switch? Thank you!

Because I often have to shoot in dusty conditions, I was looking for a better sealed lens than a 28-135 I'd been using and begged/borrowed to try both 24-105 and 24-70. I ended up buying a 24-70.

What surprised me was how close image quality was with all three of these lenses. Of course, the two L-series are a couple mm wider and better built... but the 28-135 ain't bad, it's typical "USM/gold stripe" build.

Each lens has it's nuances. The 28-135 is a little soft at 135mm, but surprisingly good at other focal lengths. Of course, it's also only f5.6 at 135mm. The 24-105 has pretty strong vignetting at 24mm... though it will mostly only show up if using the camera on full frame cameras. The IQ of the 24-70 is darned good throughout and has the best potential for strong background blurs... it's just big, heavy and expensive, with a massive lens hood (that makes sense when you see how the lens zooms).

None of them are truly "sealed", but the L's are definitely better sealed than the 28-135 and feel like they will survive longer. On the other hand, I can buy three or four 28-135s off my local Craigslist, for what a 24-105 will set me back.

All three have USM that makes for fast, accurate focusing. All three are EF lenses, full frame designs, so fully usable on either crop or full frame. Some don't like the range of these on crop, prefer a wider "walkaround" zoom... Personally I like it and don't mind complementing it with a wider zoom (I use a Tokina 12-24 as my only "crop specific" lens, but other such as the Canon 10-22 would serve just as well).

All three are pretty darned close focusing. The 24-70 is closest of the bunch, 24-105 a little less closes, and the 28-135 has the least magnification potential (without adding extension rings).

The 28-135 is prone to "zoom creep". To a lesser degree, it shows up sometimes with the 24-105. Haven't ever noticed it myself or heard others mentioin it much with the 24-70.

I don't mind having IS on a midrange zoom... but it's not a high priority for me on these shorter focal lengths, so I wasn't worried at all that the 24-70 doesn't have it. As camera ISO performance has improved, it's made IS less critical... Though I still really appreciate it on longer lenses. It's just not a very high priority feature for me on shorter focal lengths, though of course I'll take it if it's included and adds little or no cost.

The 24-70/2.8 ended up in my camera bag. I'm not going to be quick to upgrade to the Mark II (let the price settle a bit! or maybe I can win the lottery).

And I ended up buying another copy of the 28-135 to have as backup/loaner lens.

I agree that a combo of a slower zoom along with one or two or three faster primes can be a good setup too.

I started with 24-105L then switched to 24-70L but switched back to 24-105L + some prime.I found that 24-70L is too heavy and if it's too dark for f/4 most likely it'll be too dark for f/2.8 anyway. I like the versatility of the IS and more range.Also, with high ISO capability of the 5D3, the f/4 is highly usable now.

I made the switch from a 24-105 to a 24-70. As everyone else has said, 2.8 is not going to give you a huge advantage in low light situations. IS was nice on the 24-105 but if people are your main subjects then IS in lowlight with a max f/stop of 4 is not going to do you much good without bumping the ISO really high. If you want low light without flash then primes are the way to go.

To answer your question, I find f/2.8 a lot more usable than f/4. I was willing to trade IS and lighter weight for f/2.8. Wider is better IMO, when it comes to lenses at least =)

Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

Latest registered member is ejkimaging1749 guests, 207 members onlineSimultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.